[rootusrootus]

From the perspective of a customer, what is the difference between a heated seat that doesn't work because it doesn't exist, and one that is locked out by software? Assuming the customer isn't paying up front for that feature.

Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line. What's the big deal? The ability to change your mind and pay for the feature after purchase without getting an aftermarket seat heater seems like a nice bonus. Everyone wins.

[chefandy]

People are pushing back against the idea that you can't do whatever you want with a physical thing that you own. You own the heating mechanism in the seats, you own the hardware needed to turn them on, and you own the computer which activates it. If Toyota sold me a car with heated seat mechanisms installed and no switch, they couldn't stop me from installing my own switch. That you might not be able to do what you want with a physical object you own, in theory, makes this different.

[oatmeal1]

The thing is, in the long run it doesn't matter whether you are legally allowed to install your own switch. The price manufacturers charge for a car will adjust based on whether they can get revenue from subscriptions or not. If they can't successfully charge subscriptions, base car prices will go up.

[chefandy]

This could stand in as justification for any odious pricing practice. "Sure, they sneak cocktails onto their customers's bills, but if they didn't do that, they would have just charged them more for their dinner, so it doesn't matter."

[tadfisher]

The thing is, base car prices go up anyway, and subscriptions are an additional revenue stream. If manufacturers can get away with charging for anything, they will surely charge for it.

[eschneider]

I'm wondering if there might be a reasonable market for aftermarket ECUs for some of these "software enabled" vehicles when they start showing up on the used market or coming off warranty...

[fluoridation]

>Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line.

If it's that cheap then it should just always be included, period. Otherwise it's just transparent greed. Why charge your customers extra for something that costs you literally nothing extra? Why not do the same for everything? The radio volume knob is software-locked and it's either at 100% or off, unless you pay extra to unlock it. The entertainment system will play ads continuously while the car is running unless you pay extra for the no-ads version. When you unlock the doors they will stay locked for five more minutes unless you pay extra for the Instant Unlock feature.

[rootusrootus]

> Why charge your customers extra for something that costs you literally nothing extra?

Because that's not how business works, whether cars, computers, or any other widget. The cost of manufacturing is only tangentially related to the retail value.

Your examples, while contrived, could easily work the same way. As long as the customer knows what they're buying, and there are other choices on the market, then we will find out pretty quickly how valuable a non-binary volume knob is.

You may not want to know the answer to that one, if you pay much attention to airline ticket pricing and consumer behavior.

[eschneider]

It's boggles the mind that a car company would spend millions on styling and then do something like that to completely cheapen the experience. Of course, software companies do that sort of thing all the time. Just...ugh.

[GuB-42]

That's the entire point. They design a "luxury" car to be sold at a luxury price, with high margins. But by doing so, they go above budget for many potential customers.

So they make a cheaper version, with lower margins, but they deliberately cheapen the experience so that those who can afford the "luxury" version don't buy the "cheap" version instead.

[fluoridation]

If you want to sell a cheaper version then actually make that cheaper version. Don't sell the exact same version with the switch locked in the off position by a logic puzzle and then sell the solution for an exorbitant price. Hell, make a single version and physically break the feature at the factory. Remove a critical component. Anything but this bullshit.

[GuB-42]

Sometime it is simpler and cheaper to just lock the switch. It depends on how the manufacturing is done. In some cases (maybe not with Tesla) the feature is there but it may be defective. Sometimes it is worth making a completely different "cheap" version.

In any case, it shouldn't change anything for the end user, hardware or software, you pay a premium for premium features. And even if it involves actual hardware, it will cost you a lot more than what the part is worth. That's how manufacturers target both the premium and budget market with the same product. I think it benefits most people in the end, especially on the "cheap" side since people can get something they wouldn't be able to afford at all otherwise, at the cost of a bit of luxury.

Now, you can get smart, buy the cheap version and hack the software, or install much cheaper third party hardware. Same idea as ink refills for printers, or ad-blocking ad-supported websites. Often, that's you right, but don't expect the manufacturer to play along, you are on your own.

[LocalH]

$$$, that's why. $X isn't good enough for them, when they can find a way to get $X+Y

[eschneider]

Do they even get more money from stuff like that or do they lose customers because the UI now looks like ass?

[globalise83]

And that is how Ryanair was born...

[dragonwriter]

> Otherwise it's just transparent greed.

Welcome to capitalism, it seems you are new here.

> Why charge your customers extra for something that costs you literally nothing extra?

Because (1) you can, and (2) it maximizes profit.

> Why not do the same for everything?

Because of estimates about what people will accept not having in the base model and what some will be willing yo pay extra for. Why do you think there would be some other principal at work here?

[LocalH]

Stop giving them ideas!

[overnight5349]

In reality, you're still paying for the hardware. Don't think for a second that these 'optional' features don't figure into the price.

Sure, maybe they have a lower markup if you don't buy the license up front, but you still paid for it. These types of gimmicks are free money for the company pulling them.

[matwood]

Because of the way production lines work it can actually be cheaper to include it on every seat and unlock it with software.

[jjulius]

Cheaper to manufacture, yes, but the cost of the hardware is still included in what you pay for the software-locked car. You've paid for the hardware and you own it, even if it's software-locked. At that point, you're just being asked to fork over $1k or whatever the additional charge is for what essentially amounts to an "on/off" switch.

Edit: Hell, to make it sound even more stupid, you're being asked to fork over $1k or whatever the additional charge is in order to change a bit from 0 to 1.

[randomdata]

> the cost of the hardware is still included in what you pay for the software-locked car.

Not true. The price you have decided you are willing to pay assumes it is not there. Your payment allocates no portion to the hardware. If you have decided a car is worth $30,000, that is what you are willing to pay, regardless of whether or not they include the hardware.

And, in actuality, you might even consider a car with said hardware to be worth less as it adds weight which will require more fuel and wear and tear expenses over the operating lifetime of the vehicle. The car worth $30,000 without heated seats is, perhaps, only worth $29,000 if the hardware is included.

The cost to manufacturer is their problem. Your value determination is entirely independent of that. Should it cost them $1 or $100,000 to build that $30,000 car – it doesn't matter. You are paying for the value you think you will derive from owing the car, not what it cost them to make it.

Indeed, in the long run the value has to exceed the cost of manufacture, else the business will soon find itself filing for bankruptcy. But in the short term, it is not uncommon to see input costs exceed the value of the product, resulting in a net loss for the business. The buyer doesn't care. Input costs mean absolutely nothing to them.

[filcuk]

That's no different to paying $1K for a CAD licence. People just need to come to terms with the fact that the line between HW and SW is becoming blurry.

Obviously, I don't like up-paying for features I don't get to use. The price of the product must be the same, having benefited from mass production. With that being the case, I'm actually glad I have the option to save money now and upgrade later.

The concept isn't a problem, it's companies taking advantage of it (and us).

[jjulius]

>The concept isn't a problem, it's companies taking advantage of it (and us).

To borrow a phrase you used earlier, I truly don't believe that we need to come to terms with companies blurring this line and taking advantage of us.

[Timon3]

I'm paying $1K for a CAD license because I can't write a CAD program myself. I can easily change a 0 to a 1, why should I pay $1K (or however much) for a piece of software that does this?

[overnight5349]

It's closer to using a CAD package and finding out you need to pay extra to save files.

Which is a real thing that has actually happened.

The functionality exists, the code already has been written, but it's disabled so as to extract more money.

The arguments about cheaper manufacturing is pretty well pointless. If the cost of adding seat heaters is negligible, what justification is there for charging extra? You pay for the hardware either way. This is rent seeking and nothing more.

This is a topic that's been beaten to death in the electronics industry for years. Oscilloscope manufacturers design and sell a 500MHz scope, but cripple it to 200MHz unless you pay 50% more. Or they put 16MSample of memory in and restrict you to 8 unless you pay $400 for an "upgrade". The cost of buying the lower model and upgrading it later is usually much higher than just buying the high end model.

In any case, it's not like manufacturers are selling the lower tier model at a loss. They're taking lower margins on the crippled hardware, yes, but then they charge you ridiculous prices that are orders of magnitude above the real cost of the additional hardware.

[matwood]

Cost != Value.

[DangitBobby]

You're also paying for the software they used to lock you out of the features.

[creata]

> From the perspective of a customer, what is the difference between a heated seat that doesn't work because it doesn't exist, and one that is locked out by software?

In the former case, I didn't pay you money, so you didn't give me a good / service / whatever. That feels fair, because you need money to provide those things.

In the latter case, I didn't pay you money, so you didn't flip a switch. That seems like a dick move.

So I guess the difference is that in only one of these cases does it feel like the manufacturer is an asshole.

[MetaWhirledPeas]

> In the latter case, I didn't pay you money, so you didn't flip a switch.

This is the case for all software. There is no physical exchange of goods, and nearly zero effort to distribute the bits.

[ImPostingOnHN]

heated seats are hardware, not software, even if they interact with software

a car is hardware, not software, even if it interacts with software

the fact that the switch is implemented via software is irrelevant to the fact that hardware is more analagous, e.g. a printer you want to use off-brand cartridges in, or a cell phone you want to root

I bought a kindle fire at a discount because it was ad-supported, then rooted it and removed all the adware+bloatware, and don't feel even a little bit bad, because all I was doing was using my hardware as I saw fit

sorry not sorry that this breaks amazon's business model (in reality it's so rare it doesn't), but my hardware, my property, my rules

[lanstin]

Which is why Stallman got pissed at the lack of source code and worked so hard to make source code always available. So that the economic limitations line up more closely with the physical limitations.

[_factor]

The wasted economy on lugging around the extra weight for a useless seat heater.

[rootusrootus]

That's true. It happens, though, and has for years. My last car had a seat ventilation fan that was inoperable because the switch and corresponding electronics (some kind of PWM controller) to turn it on weren't installed. Seat ventilation wasn't offered on that model at all, but the seats were built with the fan. They didn't yank the fan out on principle, they just installed the seats as built.

[bastardoperator]

  Some people don't want to pay for a 4th bedroom. Turns out the builder found it cheaper to just include the extra bedroom rather than differentiate on blueprints. What's the big deal? The ability to change your mind and increase your mortgage without having to deal with construction in the future seems like a nice bonus. Everyone wins.

Cars are property. It would be absurd to think portions of my property are off limits to me. The best part about all of this, is that none of these car manufacturers are going to win, it's a rat race and plenty of people are going to buy the cheapest car and mod the car software. I actually love it. I also love how the people doing this have physical access to their property and nobody can stop them.

[rootusrootus]

Aside from the significant associated increase in maintenance costs on e.g. the roof that would come with such an option, I bet you the market would be fine with that. Stamp out houses that are all alike except some have less bedrooms enabled. Hell, offer the extra bedroom capacity as a rental option.

If the customer only paid for 1 bedroom, they're going to save a lot of money. It's the extra maintenance costs of that roof and the associated space taken up by the structure that would make it a harder sell, otherwise dynamically growing living space would be very interesting.

[bastardoperator]

You think builders are going to create rooms people might not buy and not pass off the cost to the buyers, or development company? You have more faith in companies or maybe builders than I do.

Also, how will you keep me out of the room in my house that I didn't buy? You can't effectively.

[fragmede]

Capitalism has done way dumber things than that, so I don't think it's impossible that company A builds 100 houses or apartments exactly the same and company B sells them as different sizes, based on how much the customer pays.

A creative tenant could certainly break through a wall that's been put up in place of a door, but that seems pretty extreme. I've seen some creative construction projects to make use of crawl spaces that weren't originally designed for people to live in though, but that's far from the norm.